Dispatches from the 10th Crusade

What’s Wrong with the World
is dedicated to the defense of
what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of
the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the
Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Let's Enter the Agora Together

Did you know that this is the “Flight 93 Election”? In case you haven’t already encountered Publius Decius Mus by now and have no idea what I’m talking about, let me explain in Publius’ (pseudonymous) words:

2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway. You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees.

Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances.

To ordinary conservative ears, this sounds histrionic. The stakes can’t be that high because they are never that high—except perhaps in the pages of Gibbon. Conservative intellectuals will insist that there has been no “end of history” and that all human outcomes are still possible. They will even—as Charles Kesler does—admit that America is in “crisis.” But how great is the crisis? Can things really be so bad if eight years of Obama can be followed by eight more of Hillary, and yet Constitutionalist conservatives can still reasonably hope for a restoration of our cherished ideals? Cruz in 2024!

Well, as one of those ordinary conservatives mocked and dismissed in this essay (and its follow-up) I decided that I couldn’t resist the opportunity to respond to Publius. Many writers I admire have already written very good ‘fiskings’ of the original essay; but Publius put together a response to his critics and ended with this challenge:

Which brings me to the final two objections, which are really the same: I am said to be insane, and my insanity is supposedly evident from my contention that things are really bad, when in fact they are not that bad.

I would be overjoyed to read a convincing account of why things are not that bad, why—despite appearances—the republic is healthy, constitutional norms are respected, the working class and hinterland communities are in good shape, social pathologies are low or at least declining, our elites prioritize the common good, our intellectuals and the media are honest and fair. Or if that’s too big a lift, how about one that acknowledges all the problems and outlines some reasonable prospect for renewal? But only if it’s believable. No skipped steps and no magical thinking. Dr. Conservatism needs to do better than his habitual “Sorry about the cancer, here’s a bottle of aspirin.”

If someone writes such a piece, I promise to read it and try to be persuaded by it. You might be doing me—and others whom I have misguidedly misled—a great favor. Only a fool would choose pessimism for its own sake. In my case, it chose me, against my will, because in current circumstances it just seems more plausible—in greater alignment with the observable facts—than optimism. But if I’m wrong, have at it. That’s what I meant by my reference to the agora. Arriving at the truth is hard enough with open, honest debate. It’s impossible without it. So flay me, by all means, and I will try to learn something.

[…]

The country will go on, but it will not be a constitutional republic. It will be a blue state on a national scale. Only one party will really matter. A Republican may win now and again—once in a generation, perhaps—but only a neutered one who has “updated” all his positions so as to be more in tune with the new electorate. I.e., who has done exactly what the Left has for years been concern-trolling us to do: move left and become more like them. Yet another irony: the “conservatives” who object to Trump as too liberal are working to guarantee that only a Republican far more liberal than Trump could ever win the presidency again.
Still and all, for many—potentially me included—life under perma-liberalism will be nice. If you are in the managerial class, you will probably do well—so long as you don’t say the wrong thing. (And, as noted, the list of “wrong things” will be continuously updated, so make sure you keep up.)

Professional conservatives seem to believe that their prospects will remain yoked to that of the managerial class. Maybe, but I doubt it. Eventually their donors are going to wake up and figure out what the Democrats and the Left realized long ago: conservatives serve no purpose any more. Then the money will dry up and—what then? To the extent that our “conservatives” soldier on eo nomine, life will be a lot worse for them than their current, comfortable status as Washington Generals. They will have to adjust to dhimmitude. I can’t tell if they don’t understand this, or do and accept it. Then again, what difference, at this point, would that make?

For the rest of you—flyover people—the decline will continue. But things are pretty bad now, yet you can still eat and most of you have cars, flat screens, and air conditioners. So what are you complaining about?

Keep in mind, this is the best case scenario. Which leaves open the larger questions raised in the prior essay that gave so many the vapors: how long could that possibly last? And what follows when it ends? The #NeverTrumpers don’t even attempt to answer the second because their implicit answer to the first is: forever. Who knew they were all closet Hegelians? Yet I’m called nuts for raising doubts.

Can we at least finally admit, squarely, that conservatism has failed? On the very terms that it set for itself? I don’t mean that in an accusatory or celebratory way—I’m, quite sad about it, honest!—only as a matter of plain fact.

One of those who most objected to the Flight 93 analogy also accused me of “sophistry.” I remind him that, according to Aristotle, “the Sophists identified or almost identified politics with rhetoric. In other words, the Sophists believed or tended to believe in the omnipotence of speech.” Is that not a near-perfect description of modern conservative intellectuals, or at least of their revealed preferences? Except that one wonders what, in their case, is the source of that belief, since they haven’t been able to accomplish anything in the political realm through speech or any other means in a generation.

One can point to a few enduring successes: Tax rates haven’t approached their former stratosphere highs. On the other hand, the Left is busy undoing welfare and policing reform. Beyond that, we’ve not been able to implement our agenda even when we win elections—which we do less and less. Conservatism had a project for national renewal that it failed to implement, while the Left made—and still makes—gain after gain after gain. Consider conservatism’s aims: “civic renewal,” “federalism,” “originalism,” “morality and family values,” “small government,” “limited government,” “Judeo-Christian values,” “strong national defense,” “respect among nations,” “economic freedom,” “an expanding pie,” “the American dream.” I support all of that. And all of it has been in retreat for 30 years. At least. But conservatism cannot admit as much, not even to itself, in the middle of the night with the door closed, the lights out and no one listening.

I tried to tell it, and it got mad.

All right then, consider this post me stepping into the agora to answer Publius’ challenge with “open, honest” debate – an attempt to persuade him that his analysis of our present political moment in America is wrong-headed, factually mistaken (in part) and; while this may seem ironic coming from a blog that has no problem pointing out the manifold problems with modernity, his pessimism about the future is way too apocalyptic for the actual problems faced by our fellow citizens and our leaders.

Let’s begin with the first essay, where Publius lays out his case in these stark terms:

If conservatives are right about the importance of virtue, morality, religious faith, stability, character and so on in the individual; if they are right about sexual morality or what came to be termed “family values”; if they are right about the importance of education to inculcate good character and to teach the fundamentals that have defined knowledge in the West for millennia; if they are right about societal norms and public order; if they are right about the centrality of initiative, enterprise, industry, and thrift to a sound economy and a healthy society; if they are right about the soul-sapping effects of paternalistic Big Government and its cannibalization of civil society and religious institutions; if they are right about the necessity of a strong defense and prudent statesmanship in the international sphere—if they are right about the importance of all this to national health and even survival, then they must believe—mustn’t they?—that we are headed off a cliff.

As a conservative, one may rightly ask -- why does Publius think the cliff has come into view just now? Hasn’t he been paying attention to conservative thought over the 20th Century? To take one (important) representative sample, here’s Richard Weaver from Ideas Have Consequences:

Surely we are justified in saying of our time: If you seek the monument to our folly, look about you. In our own day we have seen cities obliterated and ancient faiths stricken. We may well ask, in the words of Matthew, whether we are not faced with "great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world." We have for many years moved with a brash confidence that man had achieved a position of independence which rendered the ancient restraints needless. Now, in the first half of the twentieth century, at the height of modern progress, we behold unprecedented outbreaks of hatred and violence; we have seen whole nations desolated by war and turned into penal camps by their conquerors; we find half of mankind looking upon the other half as criminal. Everywhere occur symptoms of mass psychosis. Most portentous of all, there appear diverging bases of value, so that our single planetary globe IS mocked by worlds of different understanding. These signs of disintegration arouse fear, and fear leads to desperate unilateral efforts toward survival, which only forward the process.
Like Macbeth, Western man made an evil decision, which has become the efficient and final cause of other evil decisions. Have we forgotten our encounter with the witches on the heath? It occurred in the late fourteenth century, and what the witches said to the protagonist of this drama was that man could realize himself more fully if he would only abandon his belief in the existence of transcendentals. The powers of darkness were working subtly, as always, and they couched this proposition in the seemingly innocent form of an attack upon universals. The defeat of logical realism in the great medieval debate was the crucial event in the history of Western culture; from this flowed those acts which issue now in modern decadence.

[my emphasis]

Weaver wrote these words in 1948 – let's not use this post to start a big debate about whether or not he was correct in his diagnosis of the start of West’s problems -- but clearly he is one example of many conservative thinkers that can be adduced who will point to events of the past (sometimes the past of five hundred years ago!) who suggest that 'the cliff is coming into view' (e.g. ‘the New Deal represents a fundamental break from our constitutional order and unless reversed our republic will never know good government again') and something must be done to salvage Western civilization as we know it. These laments have a hint of truth to them, as the conservative thinker is usually pointing to a real social problem and/or decline in standards. The issue remains -- what is to be done about this decline and what is the appropriate metaphor to describe the conservative’s dilemma living in modernity. Are we really headed for a cliff? In some sense, for those of us who reject the modern Leftist world-view, things are indeed bleak, but are they any worse than what Christians faced during the early years of the church? During the attacks on the Eastern Roman Empire from Islam? During the wars of religion after the Protestant Revolution? During our fight with Nazism or the communism?

Well, Publius is very much focused on the here and now and with respect to recent conservative thinking, and as a result he rejects the solutions on offer from conservatives over the past 20+ years because he thinks they have been ineffectual and that modern conservatives refuse to own up to the true crisis that America (and the West) faces in this moment:

Let’s be very blunt here: if you genuinely think things can go on with no fundamental change needed, then you have implicitly admitted that conservatism is wrong. Wrong philosophically, wrong on human nature, wrong on the nature of politics, and wrong in its policy prescriptions. Because, first, few of those prescriptions are in force today. Second, of the ones that are, the left is busy undoing them, often with conservative assistance. And, third, the whole trend of the West is ever-leftward, ever further away from what we all understand as conservatism.

If your answer—Continetti’s, Douthat’s, Salam’s, and so many others’—is for conservatism to keep doing what it’s been doing—another policy journal, another article about welfare reform, another half-day seminar on limited government, another tax credit proposal—even though we’ve been losing ground for at least a century, then you’ve implicitly accepted that your supposed political philosophy doesn’t matter and that civilization will carry on just fine under leftist tenets. Indeed, that leftism is truer than conservatism and superior to it.

They will say, in words reminiscent of dorm-room Marxism—but our proposals have not been tried! Here our ideas sit, waiting to be implemented! To which I reply: eh, not really. Many conservative solutions—above all welfare reform and crime control—have been tried, and proved effective, but have nonetheless failed to stem the tide. Crime, for instance, is down from its mid-’70s and early ’90s peak—but way, way up from the historic American norm that ended when liberals took over criminal justice in the mid-’60s. And it’s rising fast today, in the teeth of ineffectual conservative complaints. And what has this temporary crime (or welfare, for that matter) decline done to stem the greater tide? The tsunami of leftism that still engulfs our every—literal and figurative—shore has receded not a bit but indeed has grown. All your (our) victories are short-lived.

More to the point, what has conservatism achieved lately? In the last 20 years? The answer—which appears to be “nothing”—might seem to lend credence to the plea that “our ideas haven’t been tried.” Except that the same conservatives who generate those ideas are in charge of selling them to the broader public. If their ideas “haven’t been tried,” who is ultimately at fault? The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure.

Let’s stop here and unpack this rant for a moment. The first thing we need to ask is whether or not Publius is correct – has conservatism been a total failure? I seem to read this more and more in the blogosphere and certainly used to read it regularly on alt-right blogs – it seems to be what drives the frustration with our current crop of Republican leaders and/or has helped explain the rise of Trump. But what does it mean against reality? Yes, the courts have been trending leftward for quite some time (since Griswold? Earlier?) This is an important distinction given that federal (including the Supreme Court) and state courts have often undermined conservative political victories, as with our efforts in many states to successfully use the state constitutional process to remind the public what the proper meaning of marriage consists of (by my count 38 states had officially passed constitutional amendments defining marriage solely as limited to one man and one woman before the infamous Obergefell decision.)

While the federal government grows ever more onerous and bloated with debt, our state governments are getting leaning and smarter thanks to conservative ideas and governance – at last count 23 states were totally controlled by Republicans (Governor and both houses of the state legislature) versus only 7 for Democrats. There are an additional five Republican Governors (making 28 total) and seven states that are totally controlled (both upper and lower house of representatives) by Republicans (and four more lower houses and three more upper houses controlled by Republicans.) All these Republicans at the state level have been busy – opposing Obama’s agenda, doing what they can to protect the unborn, cutting spending, attacking the ability of unions to raise money, establishing charter schools (or working with the amazing home school movement and organizations like the HSLDA to make sure that homeschooled children are left alone), easing the regulatory burdens on their businesses, etc. They have worked hand in hand with conservatives at the national level to protect our rights to defend ourselves and conservatives should be happy to celebrate Missouri as the latest state to pass a “Constitutional carry” law (essentially, citizens of Missouri no longer need any sort of permit to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense.)

So at a local level clearly the answer to Publius’ question – “what has conservatism achieved lately?” is quite a bit. As for welfare reform and crime, which he points to as conservatives successes of the past that have begun to unravel thanks to the tsunami of leftism that engulfs all temporary achievements, I’m not so convinced. He says,

Crime, for instance, is down from its mid-’70s and early ’90s peak—but way, way up from the historic American norm that ended when liberals took over criminal justice in the mid-’60s. And it’s rising fast today, in the teeth of ineffectual conservative complaints.

As an historical factual matter, this is just incorrect – depending on whose data you look at and for what crime, the “mid-‘70s and early ‘90s peak” is in fact a return to earlier high levels of crime (at least for homicide) that America experienced in the early twentieth century:

https://ourworldindata.org/homicides/

The fact that we have brought crime down to the historic lows that existed only in the 40s and 50s is indeed something to celebrate, even if, yes, some leftists are intent on undoing the hard work conservative law and order policies have accomplished the past 20+ years. Likewise, with welfare – it remains the fact that reform took millions of people off the rolls and forced them to eventually get jobs if they wanted to receive any kind of help from this program. Publius is right, of course, to point to ongoing efforts by leftists to roll this success back or I could point to other welfare programs that were not reformed and continue to metastasize. Again, I don’t deny that in many, many ways – especially at the federal level – the government is too big and imposes too much of a regulatory burden on the American people.

But that brings us to the final part of Publius’ essay – his solution. He thinks that we need to “rush the cockpit” and vote for Donald Trump as the last best hope to save the republic from a Hillary Clinton Presidency, which

will be pedal-to-the-metal on the entire Progressive-left agenda, plus items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments. Nor is even that the worst. It will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal West only in the most “advanced” Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England. We see this already in the censorship practiced by the Davoisie’s social media enablers; in the shameless propaganda tidal wave of the mainstream media; and in the personal destruction campaigns—operated through the former and aided by the latter—of the Social Justice Warriors. We see it in Obama’s flagrant use of the IRS to torment political opponents, the gaslighting denial by the media, and the collective shrug by everyone else.

It’s absurd to assume that any of this would stop or slow—would do anything other than massively intensify—in a Hillary administration. It’s even more ridiculous to expect that hitherto useless conservative opposition would suddenly become effective. For two generations at least, the Left has been calling everyone to their right Nazis. This trend has accelerated exponentially in the last few years, helped along by some on the Right who really do seem to merit—and even relish—the label. There is nothing the modern conservative fears more than being called “racist,” so alt-right pocket Nazis are manna from heaven for the Left. But also wholly unnecessary: sauce for the goose. The Left was calling us Nazis long before any pro-Trumpers tweeted Holocaust denial memes. And how does one deal with a Nazi—that is, with an enemy one is convinced intends your destruction? You don’t compromise with him or leave him alone. You crush him.

O.K. then! Again, ignoring all our efforts to stop left-wing madness over the past eight years under Obama (sometimes successful and sometimes not) Publius plows ahead with his case that Trump is the antidote to a Hillary presidency, specifically because Trump gets these three things correct:

Trump is the most liberal Republican nominee since Thomas Dewey. He departs from conservative orthodoxy in so many ways that National Review still hasn’t stopped counting. But let’s stick to just the core issues animating his campaign. On trade, globalization, and war, Trump is to the left (conventionally understood) not only of his own party, but of his Democratic opponent. And yet the Left and the junta are at one with the house-broken conservatives in their determination—desperation—not merely to defeat Trump but to destroy him. What gives?

Oh, right—there’s that other issue. The sacredness of mass immigration is the mystic chord that unites America’s ruling and intellectual classes. Their reasons vary somewhat. The Left and the Democrats seek ringers to form a permanent electoral majority. They, or many of them, also believe the academic-intellectual lie that America’s inherently racist and evil nature can be expiated only through ever greater “diversity.” The junta of course craves cheaper and more docile labor. It also seeks to legitimize, and deflect unwanted attention from, its wealth and power by pretending that its open borders stance is a form of noblesse oblige. The Republicans and the “conservatives”? Both of course desperately want absolution from the charge of “racism.”

[…]

Yes, Trump is worse than imperfect. So what? We can lament until we choke the lack of a great statesman to address the fundamental issues of our time—or, more importantly, to connect them. Since Pat Buchanan’s three failures, occasionally a candidate arose who saw one piece: Dick Gephardt on trade, Ron Paul on war, Tom Tancredo on immigration. Yet, among recent political figures—great statesmen, dangerous demagogues, and mewling gnats alike—only Trump-the-alleged-buffoon not merely saw all three and their essential connectivity, but was able to win on them. The alleged buffoon is thus more prudent—more practically wise—than all of our wise-and-good who so bitterly oppose him. This should embarrass them. That their failures instead embolden them is only further proof of their foolishness and hubris.

So here is Publius’ essential case for Trump: that what America needs right now more than anything else is a candidate that will change our immigration policies (so they are more restrictive and are much more serious about the risks of assimilating poor and/or alien – Muslim – cultures), change our trade policies so we are more protectionist and less open to free trade, and finally a candidate that is willing to re-think our foreign policies and be willing to retreat from various alliances and/or foreign theaters of war.

This is supposed to save America?

Let’s think back to Publius’ earlier lament – I thought he agreed with conservatives about the “centrality of initiative, enterprise, industry, and thrift to a sound economy and a healthy society” and nodded his head along when us conservatives talked about “the soul-sapping effects of paternalistic Big Government and its cannibalization of civil society and religious institutions”? If so, what the heck will Trump do to improve this situation? As Publius himself admits, Trump is nothing more than a liberal Democrat who has unorthodox views on immigration. Trump is not serious, at all, about doing anything with respect to the size and scope of the administrative federal state, the budget deficit, our national debt, entitlement programs, etc. Indeed, what policy detail he has revealed suggest he will make the problem worse!

I’ve already blogged on this site about trade – I just disagree with Publius and Trump that more protectionism is the answer to our economic problems (I think it will make them worse and ultimately hurt the working class.) As for Trump’s “foreign policy” – who knows what he thinks? He was for the Iraq war and then he was against it; he has flirted with left-wing lies that Bush made up the intelligence on WMD in Iraq, he said he supports torture, he thinks Putin is a good leader for Russia (quick news flash – I would like nothing more than peace and prosperity for the Russian people and for our two countries to develop stronger ties with one another – I just think it is kind of hard to do that when a viciousdictator is in charge of one of those countries), etc. Like Publius, I think it would be wise if America pulled back from our heavy involvement in the Middle-East and encouraged others to fight their own battles. If we have learned anything from our past involvement in the region it is that unintended consequences face any action in the Islamic world and unless we are directly threaten by a state we would do well to avoid direct entanglement. But Trump is on record as saying we have to "do something extremely tough over there...like knock the hell out of them" referring to ISIS -- does that sound like someone who is ready to pull out of direct engagement in the Middle-East?

And then there is immigration – the idea that “Conservative Inc.” (except for the brave Tom Tancredo) has been only for ‘open borders’ over the past 20+ years is laughably wrong. Has Publius never read a word that Mark Krikorian has written (for National Review no less!) Yes, some conservatives favor more immigration than others – but there are many serious intellectual conservatives in the mainstream who have been willing to call for serious immigration restrictions or at least focus first on border control and security before any talk of legalization or normalization of the status of illegals already in the country. Senator Sessions has been fighting this good fight for years and Trump was smart to draw on his wisdom in crafting his own policy positions on immigration. The conservative base has dragged the Republican leadership kicking and screaming to our more restrictionist position and we’ve punished those who won’t toe the line (e.g. Eric Cantor.)

But let’s go back to Publius’ central contention – even if we are successful in reducing the flow of immigrants into this country (especially from poorer, third-world and Muslim countries) would that suddenly solve all our problems with the Left? To ask this question is to answer it – the American people are divided. We differ about fundamental first things, to use Father Neuhaus’ old formulation and changing demographics, while helpful; won’t change the fact that people in Massachusetts and California think about the role of the family, government responsibility, and the meaning of liberty in different ways than the people in Texas and Utah. We are even divided within states -- the people of Austin don’t agree with the people in Fort Worth on what constitutes the good life; what it means to defend the good, the true and the beautiful; and what government’s role should be in promoting the common good. Changing our demographic over the next 50 years might help promote domestic cohesion (I think it will) but we will remain divided over these 'first things' for quite some time.

If you are a conservative what will help in the long run are conservative ideas and winning people over to our side – which is why Trump is so disappointing and unacceptable – almost nothing he says and does on the campaign trail helps advance the basic philosophical case for limited government, the meaning of the Constitution and ordered liberty, the importance of the natural law and the complementary role of the sexes in marriage and the family, etc. Think again back to Richard Weaver – idea matter and in the long run there is no easy way around the fact that we have to convince our fellow citizens of the righteousness of our cause.

Finally, there is work to be done outside of politics – in the culture, in our churches, in our local community groups, etc. As Jonah Goldberg said in his response to Publius, concerning the original Flight 93 metaphor:

It’s also not true. Truth would exonerate him. But it isn’t true — and even if it were, he can’t possibly know that it is. I am the first to concede that if Hillary Clinton wins it will likely be terrible for the country. But America is larger than one election for one office in one branch in one of our many layers of government. Indeed, if it’s true that America is one election away from death, then America is already dead. Because the whole idea of this country is that most of life exists outside of the scope of government. Yes, this idea is battered and bloodied. But I fail to see how rejecting the idea — as Decius does — is the best way to save it.

Comments (51)

I would just add to all the good and very hard work you have done on this post, Jeff, that Trump's immigration claims themselves are ever-morphing and that those who have urged us that we must vote Trump because of immigration have suffered some very serious embarrassment recently. All the more so since Coulter herself said that changing his immigration stance was the only unforgivable thing he could do, and then he went out and started back-pedaling *on the day that her book was released* promoting his campaign.

So, as usual, there really *are* no "Trump policy positions." Not in the sense of stable positions that he actually holds and would try to put into practice. There are just words that come out of his mouth or are posted somewhere on a web site at some point in time.

@ Jeff & Steve: You guys reside in Chicago/Chicagoland? Small world. I actually have a handful of performances written on a post-it note, right in from of me actually, for the Lyric Opera that I'm eyeing to attend if my budget and schedule permits.

First of all, “ideology” is just dumbed-down and formulized philosophy. What I recommend is for kids to study the real thing. This will help them think down the road, and think prudently about what to do in a given salutation. There is no “conservative ideology” that can stand the test of time—more than a few decades at most. Prudent action requires that thought change with the times, which requires a firm basis of learning in the eternal. Then you think through what to do in a given circumstance from there.

In the context of his time, as a political actor, Cicero was a conservative. In the context of their times, the American Founders were the liberals. Both were trying to do their best for their country and their people.

In the context of these times, Trump IS conservative. The “conservatives” are just dumb. To the extent that they are not outright liberal.

I think the problem with Publius' line of thought is that it assumes that Conservatism is a monolithic system of beliefs as is Liberalism. We see a similar thing when Conservatives toss about the word "capitalism". It isn't a unified system, was never supposed to be, and its a shame when Conservatives think of it as such. People think they need a similar term to Socialism, which is a more or less idealistic monolithic system of beliefs.

I'm not saying Conservative beliefs aren't coherent or any such thing; they are. But what if it's closer to what Buckley said about saying "stop!". What if it's main function and purpose was mostly a position that however poor a given situation seems, it must be accepted as long at the alternatives are worse. Isn't that closer to a true definition of conservatism? It's answering the Liberal insistence that what is hypothetical is actual with "But that's not the case is it?" And on and on.

So in the long run I think Conservatism may be judged on how effectively it slowed the Liberal machine while waiting on a new political order to be on the menu. Waiting for reality to inform everyone that the Liberal project has failed. I think Conservatives seeing politics as a closed system what wins or loses aren't thinking as Conservatives should.

I made the claim recently that "devolution of authority" was a natural historical trajectory, and made reference to shipping containers. In other words, technology has a dramatic effect though we forget it. It doesn't solve political problems but makes possible their solution by inventive and industrious individuals who tend to be conservative, or at least act that way in their invention and industry. Politically we need a libertarian revolution, but if and when it comes people like Publius will likely see it as a failure.

It's obvious that the government at the federal level and the blue states is moving to protect itself against anything that would undermine its continuation in it's current form. Is ObamaCare the start of a European style "health care" system, or was it the last gasp of a Liberal state about to lose control that is failing and will fail? But it's quite clear to me the only way to even have a possibility of a smaller government is for the government to succumb to wider trends happening other sectors of the country (and world), and that it is determined to resist. The question is whether it can or not. The path of Conservatism is the path of Liberal failure. It can't be anything other than a rough ride. It's supposed to be.

Jeffrey S,
I feel that you avoid a major point made in the Flight 93 article that the conservatives do not win any more.
America is still a place where a 9 month fetus may be aborted at will. This is not so anywhere else in the West.
What good have been conservative victories at state level?
Conservatives got rolled over by the transgenderists. They are having to protect their daughter's modesty. And you tell us that 23 states are controlled by Republicans! And one of them, Illinois,was a topic of post dated 16th Sept Time for civil disobedience in Illinois.

Publius Decius Mus is precisely correct in that if conservatism were right about Natural law, then we are headed off a cliff.. It is silly to counter this reality, that America does not honor Natural Law now, with errors made by some philosopher six or seven centuries ago. Cliff in reality is far from the cliff in theory.

Though immigrants are not source of the Leftism but it is undeniable that they cause the Left to wield power and they fracture the Right.

Your comment to me was incoherent. First you accuse me of ignoring a "a major point" made in the article. Then, when you realize I didn't ignore the point, you did the right thing and disagreed with my argument.

If we are just now headed off the cliff -- how come it took 40+ years and not when Roe v Wade was passed? And if those victories at the state level I discuss are meaningless, why are abortions rates at their lowest levels (still way too high for those of us who care about innocent life) since the 70s? Are you says state level restrictions have no impact on abortion rates? On our ability to defend ourselves with firearms? Etc.

Yes, we face real challenges (like the crazy transgender movement) but does that mean suddenly the American republic or conservative ideas are doomed?

I've been saying for a long time that it's a strange confusion to say that some set of ideas is *wrong* just because others harm and defeat by force those who hold those ideas. Christianity, for example, wasn't shown to be *wrong* during times of intense persecution when Christians were being driven into the catacombs and it was unclear whether the church would (in an earthly sense) survive. There wasn't something *wrong* with the political ideas of Anglo-Saxon society just because the Normans defeated the Anglo-Saxons at the Battle of Hastings. Those who opposed the Nazis in Germany weren't *wrong* because the Nazis succeeded in taking over Germany. Oliver Cromwell didn't prove monarchy to be *wrong* by executing Charles I. And conservativism isn't *wrong* because the liberals have achieved power by illicit, unconstitutional means and are promoting evil, doing evil, and persecuting conservatives.

This sort of argument is a kind of argumentum ad bacculum: If you lose (in any sense of "lose"), you must be wrong. I happen to think that monarchy is not the best form of government, but I don't think the execution or assassination of a king *shows* that to be the case!

That's crazy. It isn't even true that you must be *doing* something wrong if you lose. (Because otherwise you'd be more successful at promoting and winning the culture with your ideas.) Jesus wasn't doing something wrong because he got crucified!

This whole "conservatism is losing, so there must be something wrong with conservatism" is a gigantic non sequitur. It's so irrational, at so fundamental a level, that it's difficult (for me, anyway) even to know where to begin to grapple with it in a logical way and answer it as though it's a real argument, because it's just illogical.

The idea that something is proven right by its worldly success is not only irrational but anti-Christian and pernicious. It's the naked worship of power, which is hardly going to lead one either to know the truth or to live by the truth.

Better to see the glory of fighting when one is losing in worldly terms but is, in fact, doing the right thing and on the right side. If we are going to start blinding ourselves to that very possibility, we are going to lose indeed. For what does it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul.

Politics is about how to acquire power as much as it is about metaphysical truth, so if that bothers you then please refrain from discussing it. The alternative right's critique on modern conservatism* is that it is doubly wrong. As a political movement conservatism fails to win/influence the national discourse and as a political philosophy many of its tenets stem from false, liberal, egalitarian metaphysics.

*By “conservatism” I mean the traditional Republican Party, low-tax, small(ish) government political ideal which offers incantations toward the constitution and spends an inordinate amount of time conceptualizing freedom instead of fighting for it. Basically the doctrine of National Review.*

Two policy positions central to conservatism should highlight this nicely. The first is tax cuts for corporations. This was a central part of the Romney/Ryan platform. Grounded in economic theory, the mainstream conservative argument considers only the economic costs and benefits of tax policy. The fact these corporations go on to promote sodomy or lobby for illegal alien amnesty never enters into the debate when discussing tax policy. Mainstream conservatism, vis a vis tax policy, essentially trades away fundamental conservative principles on preserving the social order for crude utilitarian metrics such as GDP. Now it'd be one thing if this was a winning position to make, but polling shows Americans think (by about 3 to 1) corporations don't pay enough in taxes as it is. So we end up defending a position that won't conserve the traditional American nation or win us elections.

The second would be school vouchers. A system of open enrollment vouchers is like forced-busing only rationalized under “conservative” principles. This is the common deus ex machina conservative politicians avow will solve the education woes of the inner-cities—as if education qua education is a conservative principle. Simply put, vouchers interrupt organic human associations, rely on false notions of racial egalitarianism, and commoditize education. Parents who pay inflated mortgages to live in districts with “good schools” for their children don’t wish see the violence, disruption, and chaos associated with “bad schools” shipped in because of do-good conservative politicians trying to boost their share of the black vote from 8% to 10%. It’s another losing issue. If the concern about education is cost and curriculum, conservatives would be better off served attacking the money pit and indoctrination mill which is state-funded public education by changing the laws necessitating the state funds public schools.

Far from being a non-sequitur, the political failure of conservatism allows the right to see the faults and flaws it traditionally held in a way progressives (who’ve seen their worldview be advanced by way of academia/media/corporate/judicial control) cannot. If we’re allowed to take quotes from Jesus out of context and apply them to modern-day political theorizing, then by what fruit shall we know modern conservatism? Its record is clearly one of failure, truth-denial, cowardice, and stubbornness. It is too caught up in its own self-righteousness and ideological purity that it blinds itself to larger political trends and events. It claims abortion is immoral but attacked the one candidate who thought it reasonable to punish filicidal mothers because he's had multiple wives. It claims Muslims are incompatible with the West and then excoriates the one candidate who proposed banning them from our shores because he uses vulgarities on occassion. It's petty, useless, and on its way out.

I suppose I could bang my head against a wall discussing the benefits of low corporate tax rates for the American economy (and therefore for workers and families) but all you want to do, apparently, is use the tax code to punish foolish corporate leaders who support the latest Left-wing madness when it comes to families and sexuality. How that comports with Constitutional principles or republican government I'm not quite sure -- I'm not even sure punishing people who hold foolish ideas promotes the common good from a Christian point of view.

I also don't think you are fair to most practical, on-the-ground voucher proposals which do not envision a massive geographical disruption in where kids go to school (the idea rather is that private school operators, like Catholic schools or charter schools can compete for public school kids within a particular city.) I suppose you could find a wild-eyed libertarian who thinks we need to send all the inner-city kids to the suburbs to solve their educational problems, but not most serious conservatives who write on the subject. Indeed, if you pay any attention to conservative educational policy wonks you know what they know -- vouchers have a very mixed track record (at best) at improving the performance of a school system. So plenty of conservatives are indeed promoting alternatives to public schools -- which is why my OP post gave a shout out to the home schooling movement.

I'm not going to rehash all the argument for why Trump is such a flawed candidate -- you ignored what I had to say in the OP. Let's just say my problem with him goes way beyond his multiple wives and vulgar language. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day!

"The fact that we have brought crime down to the historic lows that existed only in the 40s and 50s is indeed something to celebrate, even if, yes, some leftists are intent on undoing the hard work conservative law and order policies have accomplished the past 20+ years."

GW doesn't even know what vouchers are. I think he's confusing vouchers with geographical school choice *within* the publicly funded public school system. And confusing the latter with "forced busing," apparently thinking it a trivial matter that in this case it would not be forced but rather voluntary! (Apparently in GW's political world the only real objection to forced busing was that it served the ends of racial desegregation; hence, any other policy that might have an effect of racial desegregation in the school is also by definition the same as "forced busing." Which is a pretty weird way to look at things.)

But the weirdest thing about GW's whole list of gripes is that not a single position he objects to is a necessary part of conservatism. Does every conservative candidate have to support lowering corporate tax rates? It's not at all obvious that that *specific* usual tenet of fiscal conservatism is essential to any rational application of the term "conservative." Does every conservative have to support either school vouchers (real ones, not whatever GW thinks they are) or geographical school choice within the public school system? By no means. One might oppose actual vouchers on the grounds that they will undercut the religious and other distinctive missions of the private schools by the enslavement to public dollars. One might oppose the latter beyond a particular school district, unless agreed upon by the school districts as represented by their elected boards, on the grounds that it is contrary to subsidiarity. That would all be completely compatible with robust conservatism.

And as far as opposing Donald Trump as a candidate, where is it written that if you really believe P is true (e.g., that Islam is bad for the West and that Islamic immigration should be curbed) you literally have to support *any* candidate, however bad, who claims to agree with you on P?

That's a self-evidently absurd proposition and certainly has never been a definitional part of conservatism! Why would anyone think it is?

In short, GW is just going to stomp his foot and say that he's defined you as no real conservative if you don't support the current Republican party candidate. Which is pretty ironic considering that these guys started out telling us how much they hate the establishment.

*By “conservatism” I mean the traditional Republican Party, low-tax, small(ish) government political ideal which offers incantations toward the constitution and spends an inordinate amount of time conceptualizing freedom instead of fighting for it. Basically the doctrine of National Review.*

I guess my father wasn't a conservative. He didn't belong to the Republican Party. Instead, he belonged to the Conservative Party (which exists in NYS). He didn't "offer incantations", he was responsible for door-to-door stumping and pamphletering, talking good candidates into running, investigating corrupt politicians of other parties, etc. He didn't spend an inordinate amount of time conceptualizing freedom, instead he raised a large family on a blue-collar salary and ran the local party organization on the side. Thank goodness he wasn't a "conservative"!

In any event, the idea that a social conservative is bound to support policies that will harm the common good, put people out of jobs, and so forth, because to support economically wiser policies would be to assist people who happen to hold left-wing political views, is pretty darned silly. If there were some local businessman employing, say, 85% of the people in my town in some perfectly legitimate enterprise (a widget-making factory, for example), I would be an extremely poor public servant if I tried to find a way to put the factory out of business and everybody out of a job because the owner used his personal wealth to promote socially liberal causes. The same applies, mutatis mutandis, for across-the-board reduction in the tax and regulatory burden upon job-creating American businesses.

GRA - no, I'm not in Chicagoland, these days - I now get along as best I can a few miles outside Kansas City. But I know Chicago very well (taught "Human Being & Citizen" at U. of C. for three years under the supervision of Amy Kass (God rest her soul - what a great lady she was!)) and it's always fun to visit.

"If we are just now headed off the cliff -- how come it took 40+ years and not when Roe v Wade was passed? And if those victories at the state level I discuss are meaningless, why are abortions rates at their lowest levels (still way too high for those of us who care about innocent life) since the 70s? Are you says state level restrictions have no impact on abortion rates? On our ability to defend ourselves with firearms? Etc.

I have no idea about Publius, so I don't have anything to say about that, but, as a matter of sociology, one would expect there to be a lag between Roe v. Wade and things falling apart, partially because of how hard it can be to change the social inertia, especially when it was coupled to a strong religious fervor until the mid-1970's. One would not expect to see the bitter fruit of Roe v. Wade until one or two generations out.

As for the drop in abortion rates, that, too, seems to have little with the influence of conservatism, but from a radical change among young people to having sex, at all. Contraception, in itself, however, does not seem to be shrinking. The combination of almost universal contraception with a decreasing interest in marriage among the young is, at least in part, pushing down the abortion rate. In other words, the decrease is an after-effect of other concomitant factors.

Now it'd be one thing if this was a winning position to make, but polling shows Americans think (by about 3 to 1) corporations don't pay enough in taxes as it is.

This sort of polling is notoriously unreliable. Who is going to say 'yes' to the question do you think corporations pay enough taxes? People have no idea what they pay. Ask them if they think corporations pay too much after telling them they'll pass the costs on to the consumer.

A cynic might just ask: why is a commoditized education bloc any worse than a bureaucratized education monopoly? In both cases the people at the top are in it for the money. At least with the former, you have a chance of doing something about what kind of education your kid gets.

2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway. You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees.

Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances.

A cynic might just ask: why is a commoditized education bloc any worse than a bureaucratized education monopoly? In both cases the people at the top are in it for the money.

The term "commodity" isn't a pejorative except in Marxist terms. A commodity may be a very high quality product or service. It's just that the market treats commodities as equivalent or nearly so without regard to the producer.

So people have always preferred that their work doesn't produce a product or service that's a commodity in order that their income be above the mean. But they naturally want many of the products they need in life to be commodities. That is the path to wealth. Everything can't be a commodity, but some things have to be able to build any wealth in life. That's a market based economy, and life is all about tradeoffs.

It's not really so hard to predict what will be commodities decades in advance since things don't change as much as they seem, though some people seem to always get it wrong since it's the only story they know.

The ineffectual nature of institutionalized education has been observed for many years. In my opinion commoditization would be a dramatic improvement, or at least a lowering of costs to something in line with the quality or usefulness of the product. Institutions are fighting it tooth and nail but there's virtually no way the education gravy train can keep on rolling.

It's despicable how the mayor and the president are destroying the lives of many of the citizens of Chicago by playing at politics. Those two men could have have dramatically reduced the murder rate, but they don't even want to.

On the fleecing of students by traditional education, see here 1:05 to 1:45. A commodity is that which can't be differentiated in significant ways from a good or service provided by other producers. It's all about branding and experience now, and hiding costs wherever possible.

This whole "conservatism is losing, so there must be something wrong with conservatism" is a gigantic non sequitur. It's so irrational, at so fundamental a level, that it's difficult (for me, anyway) even to know where to begin to grapple with it in a logical way and answer it as though it's a real argument, because it's just illogical.

You might be misunderstanding the viewpoint you're pillorying. Maybe Phyllis Schlafly can make it clearer:

I think he has the courage and the energy -- you know you have to have energy for that job -- in order to bring some changes. To do what the grass roots want him to do because this is a grass-roots uprising. We’ve been following the losers for so long — now we’ve got a guy who’s going to lead us to victory.

I think the "conservatism is losing" idea is from Publius and his ilk.

Schlafly, as far as the quote cited, seems to be saying that Conservatives have failed in the past for want of courage and energy. I think that is highly dubious. It's hard to imagine a more simplistic and lazy narrative.

Some of them, though certainly not Governor Romney, might have been acceptable, at some level, as cobelligerents. Conservatives should have made clear that; though we may vote for them they are not one of us.

Conservatives should have drawn a line in the sand long ago. Now for want of courage and energy in the past, we are faced with the current dilemma.

If conservatives simply need more courage and energy, then let's show courage and energy. Let's show it in favor of people and policies we can actually support. And people who really believe in those policies. None of that is remotely satisfied by supporting Donald Trump.

After Reagan, it was popular to be a conservative, in a way that it had not before. The "average Joe" would give a more serious hearing, and lend more credence, to a conservative account than before. This continued right up through Dubya's 2004 re-election, give or take. During that time, it had become largely a kiss of death to be branded a "liberaL" straight up (without qualifiers) in any but the most liberal district races. A similar thing occurred with being marxist, communist, or socialist: with the fall of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, and the revelation that they really were the evil empire: being in any sense a socialist was a death knell to possibilities.

Given the lay of the land, almost anyone who was other than a straight up liberal wanted to be able to use the mantle of "conservative" for themselves. So many middle-of-the-roaders claimed the mantle and used the word for whatever they wanted it to be that the term ceased to be coherent as a term for any specific political philosophy. While it is true that actual conservatives should have been a little more worried about a Bush II (whose first real act of directed government was to push the No Child Left Alone) being considered a conservative than they were. They should have been more vociferous about the reality. But it is hardly the conservatives fault that so many non-conservatives wanted people to attribute THEM as conservative for political gain.

Conservatives should have drawn a line in the sand long ago. Now for want of courage and energy in the past, we are faced with the current dilemma.

Look Thomas, what exactly would "drawing a line in the sand" mean? I'm thinking nothing in the real world. It's politics after all. So shouldn't I call BS on the attempt to retreat to firmer ground and then advance once again the "want of courage and energy" narrative?

I don't think it's a stretch to say many of the purists who flipped for Trump would have rejected Reagan if he rose from the dead as he actually was, rather than the idea of him they've come to accept.

Lydia,"conservatism is losing, so there must be something wrong with conservatism"
This is not the argument Publius makes. His argument is that conservatives are forever decrying this or that thing is catastrophic i.e. illegitimacy, or repeal of DADT or perilous state of religious liberty. Their own words are belied by careless approach they take towards fighting for their goals. It is like Al Gore living in a huge heated mansion while decrying fossil fuels. Were the situation so bad as the conservatives themselves say, one would expect them to fight harder. But they don't. So, it is their ideas that must be false. Repeal of DADT is not catastrophic, 70% illegitimacy is not catastrophic, etc

Fair enough Bedarz, but let's be honest that Publius' piece takes a weirdly individualistic view of group behavior. As it there's a collective mind that can reason as an individual mind.

For example, it's not that unusual to come across Conservative moralists still arguing that the Revolution was a mistake since life wasn't bad by reasonable standards under British rule. But that is to miss the point. The colonial generation's drive for independence was motivated by radical Whig ideology on the one hand, and on the other a Puritan primitivism, which is drive to recover and return to church and society the ordinances of biblical times. Both of which now, at least in my opinion, are ideas that only cranks would adhere to. But if you're deadly serious instead of cynical you don't need perfect ideas to make something good, and hyperbole and even extreme language are just part of politics in any case.

So if you've characterized his point then I think he's off the mark. But it seems to me his major point is really in the last sentence or two. That IF Republicans prefer Hillary or no one to Trump then they'll show there is no core to Conservatism. But whether Trump wins or loses I really doubt that is going to happen. They'll hold there nose and do it. Not that that will stop Publius and his ilk from claiming the NeverTrump vote was what caused Trump to lose if he does and how it proves his thesis.

Their own words are belied by careless approach they take towards fighting for their goals.

Mine isn't. And I will never vote for Trump, either.

I'm frankly sick of the bullying nonsense from those insisting we vote Trump. If you don't, you don't care enough, or you don't see how bad it is, or blah, blah. As though no one could ever believe in good faith that giving the body politic, and conservatives themselves, one form of poison is not the solution to a (only slightly different) kind of poison.

No, this "conservatism is losing" talk is all telic by these people. Its intent is to say that we need to do something that they themselves realize is not conservative (namely, voting for Trump) because *somehow* this is the only "effective" thing we can do for something-or-other and because being principled *at all* is "losing." It's not like they are being shy about saying this.

What I am suggesting is that the conservative leadership should have stood up to the establishment Republicans and said we will not support Senator McCain, and Governor Romney. Those men do not share our understanding of what it means to defend what remains of Christendom.

Four years ago Karl Rove, a man who has always been an enemy of conservatism, was allowed to promote Governor Romney as the great conservative stalwart. Dr. Ron Paul refused to endorse him. Were their any other prominent conservatives calling Governor Romney unfit?

The irony is, that if exit polls are to be believed, a significant number of rank and file conservative voters did not vote for Governor Romney. They voted Republican for Congress but did not vote for Governor Romney. They were not fooled by Fox News and Karl Rove.

Had conservative leaders taken a stand against Governor Romney, they could have taken credit for his defeat. Conservative leaders have lost credibility with Joe Six Pack

I really doubt that Joe Six Pack, whoever precisely he is, was out there opposing Romney on staunch conservative principle. But if so, then Mr. Six Pack has about thirty million more reasons for _opposing_ Donald Trump on the same principles. Trump makes Romney look like a culture warrior (which he certainly wasn't) by contrast. The whole saga of the rise of the RINOs as an explanation for the rise of Trump only shows the irrationality of mankind. And that's if it's a _true_ explanation: "Hey, I'm mad at the GOP establishment for handing me non-conservative candidates to vote for. I'm *so mad* that I'll enthusiastically support the most un-conservative GOP presidential candidate to come down the pike, ever! And I'll yell real loudly that he's the only hope for conservative values in America. That'll show 'em that they need to run _real_ conservatives if they want to keep their credibility with _me_!!"

So "drawing a line in the sand" means "leadership should have stood up to the establishment"? You've just changed metaphors around. You've just shifted from an unspecified "line" to unspecified "leaders", as opposed to the ones you think are fake leaders. There's no real content to what you're saying.

The irony is, that if exit polls are to be believed, a significant number of rank and file conservative voters did not vote for Governor Romney. They voted Republican for Congress but did not vote for Governor Romney. They were not fooled by Fox News and Karl Rove.

Jeffrey I wasn't responding to you, and I'll let Decius speak for himself. My response was to another commenter. That much should be obvious if you followed the discussion and read my response more carefully.

To the peanut gallery: there is a difference between modern "conservatism" which is a set of superficial political ideals and a conservative political philosophy concerned with order, sovereignty, teleology, tradition, etc. which most conservatives intuitively feel. The fact most of you are unable to differentiate between the two (even after I spelled it out for you) shows why we're in the position we're in and why a reality TV star/egotistical real estate developer was able to take over the Republican Party.

shows why we're in the position we're in and why a reality TV star/egotistical real estate developer was able to take over the Republican Party.

Whom you are trying to bully us into feeling like we have to support because he temporarily mouthed some stuff about Muslim immigration. See your comment upthread. I'm sure *that* will bring back an understanding of a deep conservative political philosophy. Sounds like a brilliant plan to me.

Lydia,
When one decries a host of universities engaging in medical research based on black-market baby parts but still would be reluctant to call for defunding the universities?
When one calls for Total War against jihadists and then finds one's govt acting in concert with the jihadists, and not only the govt but also the Republican establishment. But still Trump is the unique monster.
The well-crafted arguments against same-sex marriage--they don't exist-they are just expressions of irrational bigotry. Same with decades long enterprise to craft arguments against abortion. No matter, we will spend pleasant decades crafting yet more subtle arguments that would prove once and for all, that a boy is a boy and a girl is a girl.
But do you have time? This is the point Decius is making. If your own arguments were right, then you don't have the time.

Bedarz are you sleepwalking? it sounds more like you talking than Publius Decius Stupidus whatever. Trump's not a unique monster, but he can't debate one on one worth a damn. Hillary is so bad she handed him so many openings where she's uniquely vulnerable and he blew most of them defending non-essential points. Ugh. So depressing that these are our choices.

I think it would be wise if America pulled back from our heavy involvement in the Middle-East

This is some euphemism! heavy involvement indeed. Do you think that American involvement in Libya was merely heavy or wrong? That it was wrong to traffic weapons from Libya to Syrian jihadists? Trump is precisely correct and indeed admirably so to laud Putin--a vicious dictator? No more vicious than American patronizing of genocidal jihadists. Trump's comment-that America does a lot of killing too-the comment for which he drew a lot of conservative grief-was precise and accurate.

...Mr. Six Pack has about thirty million more reasons for _opposing Donald Trump_ on the same principles.

Actually, Romney is more objectionable, to many conservatives, then is Mr. Trump. One issue on which Governor Romney is more objectionable is trade policy. Another issue that Governor Romney is even worse then Mr. Trump is foreign policy. The third obvious issue on which Mr. Trump is to be preferred is immigration. I say that even though I am well aware of the ever morphing character of his Immigration policy.

I say all of this, as one who backed Senator Paul; and as one who has not, and will not, endorse Mr. Trump

The third obvious issue on which Mr. Trump is to be preferred is immigration. I say that even though I am well aware of the ever morphing character of his Immigration policy.

So that means you shouldn't say it, because there *is no* such thing as a Trump policy on immigration. Just as on anything else.

But please. Romney was a) a decent human being with a basic respect for sex, women, the human body, etc., b) actually pro-life, though somewhat timidly so, c) not a complete phony, d) not remotely likely to start a war because he can't control his temper and somebody dissed him, and e) minimally informed and competent on matters of civics, law, and other issues relevant to actually being President of the United States.

Looking at the current debacle, I myself feel at moments like apologizing to Romney for not voting for him. I didn't do so because I didn't believe he really had backbone and principle and because of his real support for bad exceptions to abortion laws. And I didn't owe him a vote any more than I owe one to any other candidate. But Trump makes him look like a great candidate by comparison.

In that case, we simply disagree strongly. The idea of calling Romney a phony in response to the same implication about, God help us, Donald Trump, as if the term could apply to Romney in the same sense that it applies to Trump, or anything like it, is just way, way out there.

I tend to agree that this is not an existential election. If it were, then we would be doomed regardless of the outcome. However, there is also no doubt in my mind that Trump is the less undesirable candidate than Hildebeast. The question is simply whether one believes he is sufficiently less undesirable to vote for him. I can see an argument both ways.

Tony, presumably that would mean: an election of such gravity that it authorizes some kind of Flight 93 desperation by analogy.

The punch of the rhetorical flourish aside -- Flight 93 holding pride of place in American sentiment and memory -- we are dealing here with a very feeble analogy indeed.

It's not clear (1) that irretrievable calamity impends or (2) that Trump is a defensible response to irretrievable calamity. The latter in particular. Trump appears he might be the kind of self-centered imbecile who would blame the stewardesses for getting their throats slit, and then ostentatiously refuse to join the men who charge the cockpit. Nothing in his nearly 40 years of life in the public eye suggests the "Let's roll" kind of sacrificial leadership. He's almost completely bereft of it. In other words, that core of social or civic solidarity, which can alone give to complete strangers the concert of mind to bring down a hijacked plane, is noteworthy for its absence in Trump.

It is baffling and dispiriting that so many otherwise solid men have fallen for this clown.

No, he was a former governor who governed somewhat competently and an actual businessman (although too enamored of tax arbitrage). He would have been a competent plutocratic president i.e. like a good hard neo-liberal he would have screwed the bottom 99.9% but we're used to that.

" If it were, then we would be doomed regardless of the outcome."

" Can you help me out here? "

No, existential means that if one opens door #1 one gets a pony. If one opens door #2 one gets a tiger.

In the instant case door #1 means the Supremes get reset to a more Warren-like circumstance and we continue the current slo-mo constitutional crisis between Congress and the Executive.. Door #2 puts the full powers of that Executive in the hands of a con man.

(Far, far away and in another life I occasionally found myself interacting with folks in the entertainment industry so certain things raise questions (some films were wholly coke fueled) . Monday night wasn't the first time I've heard that sniff, either in general or at certain rallies.)

An article at NRO by FH Buckley today claims that Donald Trump exemplifies the responsible liberalism of 1960s and 1970s Democrats.

The old coat, yesterday’s liberalism, was a not unlovely garment, and in many ways preferable to yesterday’s conservatism. This coat was the party of Americans for Democratic Action, of Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Lionel Trilling. They were strongly anti-Communist and fought hard to expel the Marxists from their party. On racial matters, they were right and the conservatives of the day were wrong.

In this understanding, the old conservatives are now represented by the alt-right, the old liberals by the Republicans and conservatives, and 60s radicals are now the progressives.

In this way one can understand why the mainstream conservatives are embarrassed by certain views of the old conservatives, say William Buckley of 50s and even call those views bilge . As did the liberals of 60s.

Post a comment

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If
your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same
comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.

Reverse the order of the digits in 31, then type the answer using letters instead of numbers, all lower case. (required):